PvXwiki talk:Test Before Voting/archive1
I think parts of this plus the percentage policy would be good. -- [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk)( ) 03:44, 3 May 2007 (CEST) :You scared me with your speed :O :P Anyways, what parts of the percentage policy do you think would mix well in here? -- Nova -- ( ) 03:51, 3 May 2007 (CEST) One would think that it's just common sense to test a build yourself before you vote, but given the trend over at GW before the wipe, unfortunately this policy is necessary. I likes. Jaofos 03:53, 3 May 2007 (CEST) A few problems in my opinion. I think the idea, is in essence, good, but it is only an ideal. Problems: * No matter what you do, or no matter how you do it, people will ALWAYS lie because they think they are smarter than everyone else and can tell instantly if a build is bad or not and will instantly unfavour it. * Loads of builds that are almost duplicates of others are posted every day. There is no reason to test the W/E Meteor Shower Warrior, because we KNOW it doesn't work. I know this is a paradox of what I said above, but this is one of the reasons I don't agree with this. There is no way you can POSSIBLY test ALL the unfavoured builds that come in OR make sure everyone who votes has tested. There also isnt a reason to. My 2g. Ni 03:55, 3 May 2007 (CEST) I like the build masters and forced testing. Basically, these two don't conflict at all with each other. -- [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk)( ) 03:55, 3 May 2007 (CEST) I also say give the build masters the power to mark a build as joke/crap/whatever. -- [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk)( ) 03:57, 3 May 2007 (CEST) P.S.: However, maybe if you allowed the Build Masters the ability to instantly un-favour a build based on stupidity, this might work. I would agree then. =) Ni 03:57, 3 May 2007 (CEST) :I see your point, and I sympathize (lolz, starburst warrior was even funnier because people vetted it!) but the instant I put that on, well, people are going to be like "DICTATOR!!!1111" or "Build Masters is too anti-democratic." (I'm going to edit in spurts to avoid edit conflicts :D) -- Nova -- ( ) 03:59, 3 May 2007 (CEST) Copier!!! lol, jk... kinda funny, the timing here. -- [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk)( ) 03:59, 3 May 2007 (CEST) What a crowded page... =p -- [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk)( ) 04:00, 3 May 2007 (CEST) Believe it or not I have to go to sleep, so this is going to be my last 2 cents of the day. Wait until I finish posting it because it will try to counter what people might say while I'm asleep :) -- Nova -- ( ) 04:01, 3 May 2007 (CEST) :Okay here is my 2cents (or maybe 2 plat :P) For duplicates, a Build Master can slap "Duplicate of (build name) and unfavour" and just be gone with it. Objections can be sent to admins, or talk pages of build masters. As for the bad builds, I'm not going to give dictator kill-and-be-done-with-it power to build masters. Instead, we can have, say, one starburst warrior build go though vetting, get unfavoured after testing, and then from then on all bad W/E fire warrior builds can have a "duplicate and unfavour" tag on them, redirecting to the starburst warrior and its votes section of how it works. -- Nova -- ( ) 04:06, 3 May 2007 (CEST) Discussion Phail. First of all, there's no way to verify whether someone has actually tested a build or not. Secondly, the same dilemma applies to the "Build Master" idea: people can fake their experience and titles, and screenies can be altered easily enough. Third, the option to test was added to GWiki so that testers wouldn't have to waste their time testing glaringly awful or joke builds. It's impossible to enforce this "Testing Required" rule, and without it, you're reduced to the exact same system that allowed the GWiki builds section to degenerate to such crap. - Krowman (talk • ) 04:05, 3 May 2007 (CEST) :So you're saying nothing will work. Thanks for the extremely constructive critism. -- Nova -- ( ) 04:08, 3 May 2007 (CEST) :# How do you enforce this requirement to test? "Yeah, of course I tested it, I spent five hours straight with the R/Mo Barrage+Heal Area combo in GvG, which is why I'm favouring it, it really works!" Go ahead, prove me wrong. Testing wasn't a criteria on GuildWiki not as an arbitrary decision by the evil admins, but because it was practically impossible to require it. :# "Champ 1 for GvG Build Master, Rank 3 for HA Build Master, Glad 1 for TA/RA Build Master". I'm actually laughing. Good grief, I have at least R3 even on my mule accounts with only a handful of skills unlocked per profession, and I absolutely suck at HA and almost never play it and have zero clue about what the meta there is or how the different maps even work! Same with glad points ("RA Build Master" sounds incredibly funny too, by the way). If you want to do this with ranks, either jack up those numbers (like not-a-fifty-five was suggesting), or drop it entirely for some other alternative. This is like using "Must have beat Hell's Precipice to be considered a PvE Builds Master" as a criteria, it's absolutely useless. --Dirigible 04:24, 3 May 2007 (CEST) :#The elitist idea is extremely, extremely stupid. I GvG all the time...but am I a champion? No, because I don't like being in top-ranked guilds. It really is no fun to join a guild that alreayd is on the top of the ladder; I like to join guilds that are unrated but aren't full of noobs and GvG/HA. Titles really don't mean shit, I've seen a mending wammo who was r5, a monk with 3 hard resses who was rank 3. Stupid, stupid, stupid.Cheese Slaya 18:04, 6 May 2007 (CEST) ::How encouraging and kind. Well, who knows. The r3 monk probably was fooling around, as with the mending whammo. Have you thought of that? And plus, it was not supposed to be elitist. Many people have r3, or glad1. And if you didn't know, top-ranked guilds run completely different strategies than not-top-ranked guilds. So a Champion, no offense, could or could not have more experience than you. But please, so what if the ranks leave out a few people? Are they going to cry over it? Titles = experience, unless they are bought, because they have to play so many battles to earn them. Even if they don't run the good strategies themselves, they sure know them. So there are people with bad luck. The world is not fair. -- Nova -- ( ) 00:58, 7 May 2007 (CEST) I don't see anything that is no covered in other proposed policies other then the req. testing and ranks for build moderators, which the percent policy is likely to provide moderators with powers listed above.--Sefre Talk* 04:29, 3 May 2007 (CEST) Lawl at what my sig has done to the text on this page. - Krowman (talk • ) 04:37, 3 May 2007 (CEST) I probably haven't had enough time to deliberate about this since I just saw it for the first time about an hour ago, however, I will say that my first impression is that the above points make this policy nonviable, at least for the time being. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 04:41, 3 May 2007 (CEST) Ugh people! Anyways, for the first point... * Well, the build masters will know that R/Mo Heal Area Barrager favored votes will not count. That's my point, and the whole point of build masters! * And the second thing about build masters' low requirements is that you really don't have to be an expert to tell a bullshit vote from a good vote. As long as you know what's going on, then you're good. And as for you, not all mules have rank 3. -- Nova -- ( ) 21:48, 3 May 2007 (CEST) :Sorry, but if you have "Build Masters" who are allowed to go through and determine which votes they think are appropriate and which are not, this is guaranteed to create conflict between build authors, voters, and the build masters. Authors will get mad if favored votes are crossed, and accuse the build master of being biased against the build. Voters will disagree with the Build Master's interpretation of their vote, and will question the Build Master's qualifications, accuse them of being noobs, etc. This sounds like a perfect formula for controversy, as it leaves the fate of a build entirely in one person's hands, and that person may be biased and may be less qualified than the author or voters (there is no reliable way to know for sure how qualified they are). -- BrianG 21:32, 7 May 2007 (CEST) :Look at me very seriously and tell me, without laughing, that there isn't already tonnes and tonnes of controversy already. Did you see Build: W/E Starburst Warrior in GuildWiki? It was favored, until some sensible admin moved it to humor. And, as unfortunate as it is, even though it appears like everyone is aiming for a democratic wiki, a wiki is never democratic. In the end, it's completely a dictatorship, with the admins being the dictators. In that respect, why not have Build Masters as well? Wasn't there arguments about whether specific people should be banned? Weren't there arguments about reverts and incorrect interpretation of the information being added to an article in GuildWiki? The Administrators have to approve build masters, but to be honest, you don't get too much more "anti-unfairness/silliness" than that, without being extremely strict.-- Nova -- ( ) 22:20, 7 May 2007 (CEST) ::Yes, I'm well aware that those problems existed on guildwiki but it seems like this policy would invite that behavior even further. Part of the problem with guildwiki is that people were frustrated that a build's fate would often be determined by a small number of people, or sometimes admins would try to delete builds they didn't like, and people felt the community was elitist. Crossing out other people's votes is an invitation to even further hostility. If people got mad when their build was unfavored (in their opinion unjustly), you are just going to amplify that and now have voters who feel their vote is crossed out unjustly, which will just add fuel to the fire of the offended build author. We want to create an environment of collaboration and when one person determines whose votes count or don't count, that person will be a magnet for controversy rather than collaboration. -- BrianG 06:44, 8 May 2007 (CEST) :::Well, there is no way to fix that problem short of getting 20-30 people to vote on a build and that will take too long. And, to be brutally honest, if someone doesn't like GuildWiki, then they can just leave. There is no need for them to contribute and they can still view builds. I understand your reasoning, but controversy is virtually un-avoidable. And Admins have all the power on wikis, why can't you say the same to them? Probably because they are mostly fair. Same goes for the proposed Build Masters who will either have to be appointed by admins or go through RfBM.... -- Nova -- ( ) 02:19, 9 May 2007 (CEST) :: This policy would be great if we can find a general consensus. But my problem with it is that is seems like earning a 'Build Master' position would saddle you with 'Obligated to Test Everything' on the site. Or in other words we would be forcing volunteers to test every build. We shouldn't be trying to pull a bait and switch, but rather trying to create a system that naturally encourages testing. Other than that, build master requirements would need to be set higher. Shireen 16:29, 11 May 2007 (CEST) :::Hmm... Well, I don't exactly see how this policy is forcing people to test every build. The Build Master candidate should just be fairly active in PvX wiki and be fairly well-received as fair and knowledgeable. Sorry I really didn't get what you were saying in the first part, could you please explain it a bit further? :::As for requirements, I believe the requirements don't really have to be too high. You don't have to be high-ranked to know precisely why Guardian will not work against Shadow Prison sins if you don't have hex removal. You don't have to be high-ranked to know Starburst warrior doesn't work. Build Masters generally do maintenance work... I think the requirements are fine as it is. -- Nova -- ( ) 02:41, 12 May 2007 (CEST) Build ratings for testing? With this kind of thing wouldn't it make sense to tack on a true "Rating" system to judge the builds by? It could be best done by a numerical value, say from 1-10 or 1-5. There would be several primary categories along with optional categories that would be tacked onto the build and would help do two things: A true evaluation of the build and its abilities, and help mitigate the 'glance and unfavor/favor' people as they would be forced to think about the build. Non-testers could be more easily screened out at that point. :An idea for the core attributes to a build would be: :* Self Survivability: :* Team Dependence: :* Ability to resist build counters: :* Energy mangement: :* Team Usefullness: :Then each depending on what each build is supposed to do it recieves additional ratings, these might be something like: :* Damage output :* Shutdown Capability :* Ease of Interupts :* Condition Removal :* Hex Removal :* Healing Ability :* Presure Sustainability etc. etc. -The comunity could figure out what kind of attributes need to be related to each kind of build and then each person, when they vote, put the rating of the build further down on the page. A script would then tally the marks in a table at the top of the page (near the votes) to allow for better understanding of the strength's and weaknesses of the build. I know this would be a lot of crazy work, but it might be a really cool feature to have and fix a lot of problems we experience with the vetting system. Shireen 00:12, 6 May 2007 (CEST) -Actually, I think this idea has enough merit to require it's own page: pvxwiki:True Build Ratings :As we've said on PvX:WELL, there are way too many things that make a build good or bad to list. There's no point in trying, as we'll inevitably miss some and others may or may not apply. It's a good idea, but people will take a look at the ratings, see a 3/10 in shutdown, and vote unfavored... when it's an assassin designed to do spike that carries an interrupt or two. Honestly, I like the idea, but it's way too hard to try to implement. -- Armond Warblade 22:45, 7 May 2007 (CEST) :: Thats the inherent problem with the whole system. There are a few select 'l33t' users on this site that 'know' what a superior build is. The rest of us put something solid together and you guys just say it 'bad' and can't possibly work or that it sucks or whatever, or that a particular skill ruins the whole bar. It gets unfavored and those that arn't in the know, dont understand it and no one takes the time to explain it. There is no systematic process on the site to raise peoples awareness to yalls level. Remember: Not everyone has 2-3 yrs. experience playing guild wars. And for many of the superior players they have lost touch with the lesser user base. The ratings system is one way to SHOW that, and secondly, its there to encourage testing. That's why there would be an overall category, or they would see the spike damage output and people are reminded that builds can't do everything. It's like looking at one of those racing games and you see the little side bars that show breaking/acceleration/top speed and it would help you understand how the vehicle is supposed to be used and whether or not it fits your play style. But as my ideas are not be-all end all, it's only one sugestion. Shireen 05:03, 8 May 2007 (CEST) okay so i didnt read anything on this page, i just want to throw in my views. I dont like this policy. I dont like the idea of ranking some users above others and giving them special privileges apart from a few admins, and titles are very easy to get with no knowledge of the game. Also its to slow, I can look at most builds and see how its going to work before trying it. If you make everyone test every wammo build nothing will ever move out of untested.--Coloneh 22:56, 8 May 2007 (CEST) :The fact that you didn't read anything on this page makes your argument weak. First, you're posting in the wrong section. Second, I mentioned on the page that I was considering giving build masters the right to automatically disqualify a build by adding a special tag, e.g. same logic as Build: blah blah blah, unfavored. That way, all you have to do is write out why one build sucks, e.g. Starburst Warrior, then on all future fire warrior builds, e.g. Meteor Shower warrior, just slap the tag to direct them to the unfavored Starburst Warrior. For those who are newbies, the logic on the SB war's talk page will make them understand why their build was unfavored so quickly. For vandals and people who just want to laugh, well, it's also fast way of removing illegible builds. :As I mentioned above, Wikis are already a dictatorship, i.e. a group of people have far more power than others, regardless of what many people think. Build Masters have to be approved by Admins anyways. Titles with no knowledge of the game?! Either you're very knowledgeable or you spent months getting the title, both of which equal experience and both of which qualify. The titles are just to make sure these people know what's going on. As long as you know what's going on, and you're approved by an admin... well, what's wrong with that? -- Nova -- ( ) 01:52, 9 May 2007 (CEST) ::I don't need to test an echo-mender build to know its sucks. I don't need to test a Wammo who uses skills in three profs. That is what is wrong w/ this sytem. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 02:26, 9 May 2007 (CEST) :::I find myself talking like a broken record. Look up for my responses on stupid builds. -- Nova -- ( ) 23:06, 9 May 2007 (CEST) ::::Take out the elitist crap and you've got yourself a policy. However, I can get R3 glad in one day on a mule account if I wanted, so, once again, the elitist idea is pointless. Especially RA "build masters".Cheese Slaya 02:37, 10 May 2007 (CEST) :::::Anyone can get a title relatively easily. The problem with Guild Wars is that, in general, it assigns rewards to an entire party. So, I could be a horrible, horrible spirit spammer, but if I get in a guild group with great monks and rit spikers, we could take HoH and I could get my r3 pretty easily - especially with a double fame weekend! Admins can't (and, I hope, aren't expected to) validate the titles of every candidate that applies for build master status. :::::Now that I think about it, it's rather easy to make "sockpuppet" build masters. Simply make a new account on the wiki, contribute for a while, apply for BM status, and show off your r3 mule. There's no way of proving that the two wiki accounts or the two guild wars accounts belong to the same person. I find myself more and more against this policy. -- Armond Warblade 20:38, 10 May 2007 (CEST) Quality control Please make sure that this policy has all things required to pass quality control. Please read PvXwiki:Voting on Vetting Policy. IMPORTANT! Make sure that your policy meets all of above requirements or it will NOT become a candidate and people will NOT vote for it. * How new builds will be posted. * How new builds will get into actual vetting procedure. (short) * How discussion and voting/vetting will be done. * How re-voting will be done. (short) * How deletion of builds will be done. (short) * How builds will be organized. (optional) * How it will affect existing builds. (short) * If policy needs mediawiki extension, who will make it? (short) * Plan on how to make a script (if needed). GCardinal 22:01, 10 May 2007 (CEST) Oh it's already May 11th. I didn't think time would pass so fast. Okay, fine, I'll work on it. -- Nova -- ( ) 14:25, 11 May 2007 (CEST) Happy, GCardinal? :P -- Nova -- ( ) 15:06, 11 May 2007 (CEST) : What can I say, perfect! This policy makes it clear as a candidate :) GCardinal 20:33, 11 May 2007 (CEST) :: Yay! Oh, and Gcardinal, during voting, will you be around to make sure all votes are vaild? Because I can already foresee that some people are going to not read or miss part of the policy, and they're going to say that it's not good :P -- Nova -- ( ) 00:09, 12 May 2007 (CEST) Clarification I think I already know the answer, but, just to clarify, are Administrators treated as "Build Masters" for all sections? [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 02:16, 12 May 2007 (CEST) :Of course, but I'm sure Administrators are mature enough to decide on their own whether they are experienced enough or not in an aspect of the game to make judgments on one of its builds. At least I hope :P -- Nova -- ( ) 02:34, 12 May 2007 (CEST) Suggestion If you test the build. How do you test it? Here are some proposals: DmG builds *Test the build on Master of Dmg. The Average 5 Attempts of +/- 5min will do, publish the screenshot? * Throw youself against some general opponents (Master of Hammer?, etc). Team builds * Test them against mobs (area?). * Look how long you can hold your defenses (area?) * Master of Dmg (same) * What also is possible is to vanquish an area with the teambuild (area depends on where the focus of the teambuild is). And publish the results with a screenshot (vanquish time?) Monk builds *this is a tricky one (i have no idea how to "test" this build).